NAVAJYOTI DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reach and contents of Sec. 296 and 296A of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, is the subject matter of controversy before this Court.

(2.) Before addressing to the aforesaid question it will be pertinent to make a brief survey into the facts involved in the writ petition. The Jorhat Municipal Board issued Notice vide No. JMB. 2626/56 dt. 11.9.95 inviting tenders for settlement of bazars, Rikshaw stand and Thella stand, etc. for the year 1996-97, The settlement, of Taxi, Rickshaw and Thella stand for the year 1996 97 is the subject matter in this Civil Rule. Seven persons, including the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 of this writ petition, submitted their respective lenders. The petitioner made an offer of Rs. 1,30,10l/- and the Respondent No. 6 submitted a bid of Rs.1,55,555/-. Incidently the Respondent No, 6 was the previous settlement holder of these stands. Jorhat Municipal Market Samili took into consideration the tender regarding the settlement of 400 Taxi, Rickshaw and Thella stand on 8.5.96. The minutes of the proceeding relating to these cases are culled down below :- "Proceedings of Jorhat Municipal Market Samiti held on 8.5.96 at 2 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT 1]. Shri Nabin Ch. Buragohain, President, 2]. Shri Jogen Dutta, Vice. President, 3]. Shri Narayan Ch, Das, Member. 4]. Shri Someswar Pegu, Member 5]. Shri Ramjoy Dey, Member. 6]. Shri Rajat Barthakur, Member. The meeting of Settlement Committee was held to day at 2 p.m. All lenders submitted for settlement of 407 Taxi Stand and Rickshaw, Thella Stand were placed before the Committee. At first the lender papers for the settlement of 407 Taxi Stand were scrutinised by the members of the Committee and look a resolution for settlement of the Stand tor the year 1996- 97 at 10% above the bid of the last year. On the basis of the increased rate, the settlement was fixed at (he rate of Rs, 1,74,361/- (Rupees one lakh seventy four thousand three hundred sixty one) only. The settlement was made wilh the previous lessee Shri Subhas Das after making a scrutiny of all the tender papers. Secondly, the tender papers submitted for the settlement of Rickshaw and Thella siand was scrutinised by the Members of Ihe Committee. The Commiitee passed a resolution for settlement of the Sland for (he year 1996- 97 at 10% above the bid of the lasl year, The settlement was at the rate (if Us. 1.45.200/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand Iwo hundred) only on the basis of (he said increased rate. The Commiitee has decided to settle the stand with Shri Nabajyoiy Dulta after discussion about the tenderers. The settlement was made with Shri Nabajynti Duiia at Rs. IAS.200/- (Rupees one lakh forty Five thousand two hundred) only* The Committee dicided to inform the matter of settlement 10 Nabajyoti Dulta SdV- Nahin Chandra Buragohain President Municipal Board, Jorrtat, Memo No. 1MB 270-81 dt. 31,5.96. (Quoted from Page 18-19 -Annexure 4 - of Misc. Case No. 128.V96 filed on 11,9.96 for vacating an order of slay daied 9,9,96) The Respondent No. 6 on being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision sought for redressal of the grievance before Ihe Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Municipal Administration, The State Government on receipt of the aforesaid representation initially stayed the settlement order and (his Court in Civil Rule No, 256W 96 stayed the aforesaid direction of the State Government and by an order dated 19.6.96 in Misc. Case No.7SI/96 the High Court clarified the order dated 31.3.96 and observed that pendency of Ihe wril petition should not preclude the authority to dispose of the appeal after hearing both Ihe sides by Ihe Respondent at the earliest, and the State Govt. by its order dated 30.8.96 ordered the Jorhat Municipal Board to settle the ThcUa Stand with the Respondent No, 6 at his own bid of Rs, 1,5-VW/-. The State Govt. on consideration of me materials found lhal the offer of the Rcspondem No. 6 was higher than thai of the petitioner and, therefore* on consideration of higher revenue preferred (he Respondent No. 6 thun thai of the petitioner, the State Govt. also took exception on the action of the Board for departing from Notice the Inviting Tender and by resorting to settle the stand wilh that of the petitioner by raising/increasing the settlement rate by 10%. The impugned order dated 30th August 1996 bearing No. MA, 283/ 95/87A issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Municipal Administration Department is assailed before this Court by the writ petition.

(3.) Mr. A. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly urged that the State Government has exceeded its hound by settling the stand with that of Respondent No. 6 in exercise of its power under Chapter VIII of the Assam Municipal Act, According to Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the power conferred on the State Government u/s 296 and 296A of the act is the power of supervisory nature and not that of an appellate power. Mr. Roy, learned counsel, further submits that the power U/s 296 is limited in content and does not confer un-restricted power on the State Govt. to set aside an order of settlement pased by an autonomous body and settle the same with a bidder of its own choice. Mr, Roy particularly emphasise that the State Govt. does not possess the power of a primary authority, nor the powers of the State Govt. under Chapter VIII is co-extensive of the power of that of the original authority. Mr. Roy, learned counsel, further submits that the State Govt. had acted illegally by settling the stand with that of Respondent No. 6 without settling aside the order of settlement passed by the Board. Mr. Roy, learned counsel, also submits that the tender of Respondent No. 6 was defective and in that view of - the matter the tender of the Respondent ought not to have taken into consideration by the Respondent State Govt, Lastly, Mr. Roy has submitted that the State Government preferred the tender of Respondent No.6 only on the ground that the Respondent has offered the highest bidder. According to Mr, Roy highest bid cannot be the only consideration and there may be various oilier considerations for not accepting the lender of the Respondent No. 6 as has been specified by the petitioner, and, therefore, the impugned order of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 6 is not justified.